Are you pro-life and support oral contraceptives?

[Vallerina 2]

Unfortunately, I can't access the Planned Parenthood website, so this link that tells me what I've heard at Planned Parenthood numerous times will have to do.
http://www.epm.org/articles/bcp5400.html

Quote

In summary, according to multiple references throughout The Physician's Desk Reference, which articulate the research findings of all the birth control pill manufacturers, there are not one but three mechanisms of birth control pills:
1. inhibiting ovulation (the primary mechanism),
2. thickening the cervical mucus, thereby making it more difficult for sperm to travel to the egg, and
3. thinning and shriveling the lining of the uterus to the point that it is unable or less able to facilitate the implantation of the newly fertilized egg.

The first two mechanisms are contraceptive. The third is abortive.

Is it hypocritical to consider a fertilized egg a child which should not be removed from a woman's body except if it's by means of oral contraceptives?

It's silly for anyone to want to outlaw birth control pills, but one of their ways to prevent pregnancy is by being an abortive. But, I am curious as to how many pro-lifers think that one form of abortion is okay and another is not.

There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning

[Tink1717 2]

It doesn't matter whether or not you think abortion is OK. You only get to make that decision for yourself. If you are against abortion, don't have one.

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

It's silly for anyone to want to outlaw birth control pills, but one of their ways to prevent pregnancy is by being an abortive.

Not necessarily. There are plenty of pro-life folks who aren't absolutists. Assuming that describing oneself as "pro-life" implies an absolute opposition to all forms of abortion is sort of like assuming that all pro-choicers believe abortion is ok up until the very second of delivery.

This issue is a long way from black and white, and trying to draw bright lines just doesn't seem to serve it well.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Vallerina 2]

Quote

If you are against abortion, don't have one.

But, if you're against abortion and on the pill or are with someone on the pill, isn't that hypocritical?

There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning

[Vallerina 2]

Quote

This issue is a long way from black and white, and trying to draw bright lines just doesn't seem to serve it well.

I just like to try to simplify things!

Quote

Not necessarily. There are plenty of pro-life folks who aren't absolutists.

I can understand that. Preventing pregnancy with a barrier method or killing sperm seems to show that most are absolutists (very few are.) But, to say that you should not rid a conceived egg from a woman's body on purpose but using the pill...that just seems to go against what they're saying.

I may have had a miscarriage due to Depo. I knew that this could happen before taking it. Should that be illegal?

There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning

[Tink1717 2]

No. You only get to decide for yourself.

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

But, to say that you should not rid a conceived egg from a woman's body on purpose...

I think that very few pro-lifers would make this statement as an absolute. Most of them (i.e. the real people in the real world, not the people who are so ardent that they post about it in internet discussions) allow exceptions for special circumstances (rape, risk to mothers life, etc). Perhaps this could be viewed as one of those special circumstances?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Vallerina 2]

Quote

Perhaps this could be viewed as one of those special circumstances?

Maybe...actually, I'm glad that most do support oral contraceptives, but it just seems odd to me. To each their own....

There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning

[pajarito 0]

This topic has already been and is being discussed in quite some detail in the thread, "Suppose abortions become illegal...What then?" Why the new one?

[WrongWay 0]

Abortion, whether right or wrong, is a choice. If my girlfriend got pregnant, I would never want her to do that, but that doesn't mean I have any right to tell other people not to do it.

Wrong Way
D #27371 Mal Manera Rodriguez Cajun Chicken Ø Hellfish #451
The wiser wolf prevails.

[Vallerina 2]

Quote

This topic has already been and is being discussed in quite some detail in the thread, "Suppose abortions become illegal...What then?"

People were talking about how birth control pills are abortives????

Adding on...plus, I'm curious to see how pro-lifers view oral contraceptives. I doubt you'll find any pro-choice people against them.

There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning

[TomAiello 26]

I'd say a new thread was a good idea to keep this issue separate from the "what would the societal ramifications of outlawing abortion be?" thrust of that other thread.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[pajarito 0]

Yes...but as to the ones mentioned above....their primary function is not abortive.

[Vallerina 2]

No, but it is a function. I'm just curious as to what the difference between getting rid of a fertilized egg one way is different than doing it in another way. Tom made a good point....

There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning

[pajarito 0]

Here's the conversation and my responses to the questions posed concerning IUD's as well as OC's. It might clear up some things:

********************************************************************

Quote

Quote

Quote

If you had high blood pressure it would have likely been known before you were pregnant would it not?

Not always, no. Sometimes women devolop conditions during pregnancy. I just asked if this happened to your wife what would you want her to do if she is faced with dying and leaving behind children.

Most of the time, if you develop pregnancy induced hypertension or pre-eclampsia, it usually happens after viability. These people often get induced or sectioned early with every attempt made to preserve the life of both mother and baby. If the choice is between mother and baby, it has to be for the mother. Part of this reason is due to the fact that if the mother dies, the baby dies also.

*********************************************************************

Quote

Quote

One of the actions of oral contraceptives is to create atrophic changes in the endometrium that are not conducive to implantation by the embryo. Do you support women using oral contraceptives?

Lindsey

The purpose is not really to prevent implantation but to supress ovulation. Rarely, the result is preventing implantation.

Quote

Quote

An IUD which
"change the lining of the uterus and prevent implantation."

Now, how about you?

Not sure if you are talking about a Mirena IUD or a copper IUD. The main mechanism of action in a copper IUD is as a spermicide. It causes phagocytosis of sperm. It also impedes sperm trasport and viability in the cervical mucus. Because of this, very few sperm ever even reach the fallopian tubes. Mirena IUD's also acts as a spermicide. Either way, the lining of the uterus is changed but this is NOT the main mechanism of action. However, on occasion, it might prevent implantation and do what you say. There are cases of implantation of an embryo with an IUD in place.

Quote

Quote

Paragard- Copper

Phagocytosis, is ingestion and digestion of cells, that is not what copper IUD's do to sperm.
(imaginining big bad IUD eating up the invader sperm!! LOL.. could be a good sci-fi flick)

Copper IUD's release copper ions which cause a local reaction which causes a release of leukocytes (white blood cells). These are the cells which cause phagocytosis. Therefore, according to 2 OB/GYN books present to my right, this is the main mechanism of action.

Quote

One function is to be the block & tackle, however, that does not escape the fact that it ALSO prevents implantation for strong swimmers. That's why it's so effective. Besides the TRUTH of the matter with IUD's is doctors are not so sure why it works so well, they just know it does.

Not sure what the "block & tackle" description is supposed to mean.

Quote

You might also read between the lines of how periods and cycles are heavier and more traumatic in general once an IUD is inserted.....

That is because you have a foreign body present inside the uterine cavity which is the source of the increased contractions. You will note that, with a Mirena IUD, periods actually become lighter secondary to the progestrone secretion.

Quote

Quote

from the manufacturer of my IUD:
"The exact mechanism by which copper enhances the contraceptive effect of intrauterine contraception has not been conclusively demonstrated. Various hypotheses have been advanced, including interference with sperm transport, fertilization, and implantation. Clinical studies with copper-bearing intrauterine contraceptives also suggest that fertilization is prevented either due to an altered number or lack of viability of spermatozoa"

The last part about clinical studies with copper IUD’s is exactly what I was describing. You are correct in that they aren’t 100% sure of the mechanism of action, however, the studies that have been done indicate that the main mechanism of action is as I described above. Again, I concede that there are cases where the blocking of implantation takes place but that is NOT the main mechanism of action.

Reference: Fertility & Sterility, 1989; 49: 768-773

Eggs flushed from the tubes at tubal sterilization showed no evidence of fertilization in women wearing copper IUD’s.

Quote

Quote

Eggs flushed from the tubes at tubal sterilization showed no evidence of fertilization in women wearing copper IUD’s.

Your reference material is quite outdated, alot has changed in the last 14 years. Let us also not neglect the fact that an IUD is one of the LEAST used forms of birth control therefore making it not a research priority.

And I'm not sure about the "eggs flushed part" since they don't due sterilization procedures on pregnant women, why would you expect to find a fertilized egg in a sterilization procedure?

I think we got sidetracked.. again how does this bear on what would happen if abortion was illegal?

The studies that were done on IUD’s are older because they were used more frequently in this country in the past. IUD’s aren’t very common at all in this country; however, they are much more common in other countries. These studies are still being quoted in the latest OB/GYN textbooks and Novak’s Gynecology and Comprehensive Gynecology are very reputable sources. Everything I stated is supported in both.

This is the gist of the study that I mentioned:

They looked at women wearing IUD’s and women who were using no form of birth control. These women then underwent tubal sterilization soon after ovulation. These women had unprotected sex before ovulation. Normal fertilized ova were found in about half the patients who used no form of birth control, however, there were no eggs found in the women wearing the IUD’s.

None of the women in the study above would have had positive pregnancy tests because it was too early.

There are other studies. This was just one example.

As far as getting sidetracked, you were the one that brought it up in reference to abortion.
Getting late here in Georgia. Gotta go to bed. Hasta manana.

***

[pajarito 0]

Quote

No, but it is a function. I'm just curious as to what the difference between getting rid of a fertilized egg one way is different than doing it in another way. Tom made a good point....

Short answer is that it is not a primary function of IUD or OC and is not a method of action that they are looking for. It is, in fact (referring to prevention of implantation), something that they try and avoid.

[lawrocket 3]

I chose #1. I used to be pro-choice, till I worked in ultrasound and saw heartbeats on 8 week old embryos.

I am pro oral contraceptive though. I freely admit that my distinction is arbitrary and based solely on my belief system.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[RoadRash 0]

Quote

Abortion, whether right or wrong, is a choice. If my girlfriend got pregnant, I would never want her to do that, but that doesn't mean I have any right to tell other people not to do it.

I agree, I have had several people close to me have abortions because they believed it was the right choice for them. If that is the case, then have an abortion. I personally use the pill and have in the past, but I would never get an abortion, and that is what is right for me. To each his own...


P.S. I don't preach to others about not getting an abortion, however, I will point someone in the direction of Planned Parenthood or student health services in order for them to be informed of methods to prevent pregnancy and the possiblity of having to get an abortion. Prevention is key.


~R+R

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Fly the friendly skies...^_^...})ii({...^_~...

[Vallerina 2]

What about bc like Depo? It makes sure that you have no build up on your uterus wall so that fertilized eggs never have a chance to implant themselves. Woman may continually be getting rid of fertilized eggs even after they discontinue use.

There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning

[pajarito 0]

I'm pro-life (surprise...surprise) and I chose #1. I happen to believe that, in the absense of anyone knowing any better, we can't assume that human life begins at any stage of development. Therefore, I use conception as my starting point. The joining of DNA strands into a human component. I accept some forms of birth control such as the ones that do not as a primary means inhibit the development of a zygote once it has been formed. There are rare instances of this happening as a side-effect of some birth control but that is not what it is designed to do (speaking of OC/IUD, etc. I personally am willing to take that small risk.

[meltdown 0]

"Abortion, whether right or wrong, is a choice. If my girlfriend got pregnant, I would never want her to do that, but that doesn't mean I have any right to tell other people not to do it. "

Well than, does anyone or any society have the right to tell anyone else what to do, ever? Suppose killing babies under 6 months, or babies that were deemed "defective" were legal. Would it still be just a "choice"? It seems like most people want to play both sides on this issue, e.g. : "I would never do it, but I won't stop anyone else from doing it". Anyone willing to take a stand for the unborn is an "extremist". I'm not religious, but I oppose abortion on the grounds that the systematic destruction of the most innocent life there is, is about as barbaric as a society can get. However, civilized societies seem to have embraced that the idea that the value of convenience is more important than the value of giving the unborn a chance at life. I guess that's the right of each society to decide. It just seems kind of sick that we are so willing to gloss over what abortion is, which is the destruction of an unborn child. Instead, we come up with positive buzzwords to alleviate our guilt, such as "reproductive rights" and "pro-choice". The fact is, we offer more protections to unborn animals. Rant over.

[Vallerina 2]

Quote

but I oppose abortion on the grounds that the systematic destruction of the most innocent life there is, is about as barbaric as a society can get.

Ummm...what's this have to do with the topic...unless you're saying that bc pills are barbaric?

There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning

[meltdown 0]

Sorry, didn't mean to hijack your thread.

[billvon 3,006]

>Well than, does anyone or any society have the right to tell anyone
> else what to do, ever?

Of course.

>but I oppose abortion on the grounds that the systematic destruction
>of the most innocent life there is, is about as barbaric as a society
>can get.

One of the reasons I don't see it that way is that we today regularly use technology to provide women with the ability to have children. Often, the unused embryos are frozen and stored; often they are discarded when the parents have the number of children they want, can no longer carry children, or (eventually) die. And even though that may be "the slaughter of innocent lives," the IVF children I know are a testimony to how that procedure brings new life into the world that otherwise would never have had a chance to be born.

Slippery slope? You bet. Which is why I have trouble believing extremists from _either_ side. I can't see aborting a child at 20 weeks; and aborting a child at 30 weeks is certainly "taking an innocent life" (if for any other reason than to save the woman's life.) But discarding those embryos is no more murder than discarding the sperm and eggs stored in the same facility.

> Instead, we come up with positive buzzwords to alleviate our guilt,
> such as "reproductive rights" and "pro-choice".

Both sides do that. I know "pro-lifers" who would rather a woman die than have an abortion.

[meltdown 0]

Good points all.